Saturday, February 21, 2009

Edition Wars

I've got other things going on for a week or two so posting will be light. But when something must be said...

This post here bemoans Tim Kask's editorial in the newly-released Knockspell. More specifically, it complains about Kask's antagonistic tone.

Readers can guess how much sympathy I have for that complaint.

Antagonism is a completely natural, and perhaps unavoidable, when it comes to the "Old School Renaissance" (or as I like to think of it, "The Age of the Return to Reason," to continue the antagonism). For several reasons.

One, being reasonable doesn't prevent the detractors from taking shots. It doesn't matter how calm and cheerful and friendly an argument is made, people are going to be nasty and it's going to be vicious at times. I have myself been a target, in real-life, not from bloggy/forum types, of people pissing all over me for daring to put up flyers and trying to run not-current-edition games.

(and after Grognardia's whine/rant a couple days back, I think that a reasoned approach is even more antagonistic than a spirited rant... someone calmly and logically and authoritatively picking something apart is certainly more dangerous and upsetting to the (fans of the) picked-apart than a foaming diatribe, which is more easily ignored)

I believe, with all my heart, that saying, "I prefer this edition," is the same thing as saying, "The other editions aren't as good." It has to be. That one is considered impolite is simply a way of controlling the terms of the discussion so as to conceal one's own weaknesses. One edition's strengths and features aren't the only story, and attempting to portray only positivity regarding this is simply lying in an attempt to manipulate and lubricate a more unpleasant message for easier consumption. Different editions don't just lack specific traits, they possess additional features and traits which repel and cause that edition to be the non-preferred. So sometimes one's preferences of one variation of many is defined by the lack of added shit when the actual favored features are more or less shared between all the variations. And different rules promote (if not necessitate) different playing experiences. Pointing out the bad of other editions is a natural part of stating why you enjoy your preferred the most. And a completely valid way of doing so.

Now all of this is magnified to a greater degree within the "discussion" of different editions of the "same" game than it is comparing the positive and negative points of completely different games, and I think that is because of the illogic of discussing differences within something that appears to be one thing anyway because it shares a name.

The goals of the "Old School Renaissance" are no less than to change your game of choice and indeed your entire gaming philosophy. Sure, nobody else will come out and say it. That would be rude. And cries of "You're doing it wrong, motherfucker!" don't tend to bring people around. But really...

We're not selling products, we're advocating a way of doing things. Sure, some of us have a product to sell but I daresay if the magic genie came up to us and said, "You can have a thousand sales, with 100 people using it for play," or, "You can have a thousand people using your product in play, but you'll never sell more than a hundred," every single one of us would rather be played than bought. Traditional marketing blather doesn't work because we're not selling a product, we're selling an anti-market philosophy. "Play old stuff! Download it (with serial numbers filed off!) for free! Ignore the supplement bloat of the current RPG market! Pick and choose amongst these totally unessential optional releases! Most importantly, Do It Yourself!" And for all the attempts at establishing "alternate brands," the retroclones are smokescreens that want you and "allow" you to play and publish for Another Game with a Trademarked Name.

We're the New Wave of Old School Gaming. It's 1979 all over again in multiple ways, as my metalhead readers will recognize from the reference. OD&D is Sabbath. 1e is Priest. They've been around, but then a bunch of upstarts aren't playing the flavor of the day and can't get industry attention so they press their own records and then press their friends' records. We're Saxon. We're Angel Witch. We're Venom (well... Geoffrey's Venom). We're Holocaust. We're Diamond Head. (does this make Castles and Crusades Motörhead, the Last Thing before the New Wave? eek!) Somewhere amongst us is Def Leppard (sellouts!), but also somewhere amongst us is Iron Maiden, waiting to break out.

I want to be Demon. Dave Hill has the best voice.

Traditional gaming is not designed for one-shotting. Sure, it can be used that way, but it's designed for long-term campaign play. Dungeons and Dragons, one example of choice, has different modes of play that naturally evolve over the levels. These games were designed for frequent, long-term play. We're advocating a return to these games and that way of playing. How can anyone honestly sit here and do a blog promoting the virtues of these traditional games, and that mode of play, and expect that telling someone "frequent, long-term play" with the conciliatory add-on "but you're free to like and play other games as well," doesn't result in a conflict to people claiming to lead busy lives? Come on. Our biggest wish, deep down, is that playing our game (which isn't even any one version of the game!) and gathering players (or finding DMs! You think all of us hardcores that are running games wouldn't love to play once in awhile?) is no more difficult than finding players for the latest edition, or better yet no more difficult than finding players of WoW. Yeah, that's unrealistic, but our actitivies are a goal to get us closer to there (and further from here), even if we can never be there.

Traditional gaming is a social and malleable experience, not only in actual gameplay with the home group, but across groups as well. This is where the public awareness and "market share" become important.

Newer editions of the game are published by a division of a multinational corporation and a vested interest in promoting their vision, and guess what, that vision ain't ours. One is going to be a bit cranky when there's a giant gorilla jumping on your head.

Sentiments like "Nobody is taking your old edition away from you," really means, "Shut up and let that gorilla dance."

And we say, "No."

The increased prevalence of not-traditional games really does hurt our efforts at our table, and not just on the "finding people to play with" level. The exchange of cross-campaign ideas becomes more valuable with more input. Right now it's a bunch of hobbyists on blogs and and message boards and POD. I actually got a book containing the words, "This document is 100% compatible with any and all classic, class-based-with-six-ability-score fantasy role-playing games published before 1989 by those with knowledge of Tactics, Strategy, and Resourcefulness. It’s also 100% compatible with modern recreations of those same games," picked up by a publisher and put into retail distribution. I think that's huge. Imagine if that happened more often, with bigger publishers, and what that might inspire by the "rank-and-file" (you and me) that would see it.

Now then, what Kask is saying (and the funny thing is, I haven't even read the editorial in question... but I have read his thoughts on the subject in his thread (this post in particular, which I commented on in this blog last May) on Dragonsfoot, and that's what I'm using as my basis for "What Kask Said") is a barrage of the edition war on a completely different level. First, two quotes.

From the final paragraph of the OD&D box set:

In this light, we urge you to refrain from writing for rule interpretations or the like unless you are absolutely at a loss, for everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that way! On the other hand, we are not loath to answer your questions, but why have us do any more of your imagining for you?

And Kask's own words as Publications Editor from the foreword of Eldritch Wizardry (written April 1976):

D & D was meant to be a free-wheeling game, only loosely bound by the parameters of the rules.

Kask knows what he's talking about. He's not an outsider. He is not saying, "Those fuckers did this! You bastards!" He was there. He knows what happened and why it happened. He knew the feedback that TSR was receiving and he knew how it affected TSR and the D&D game.

And 30 years later, he's saying, "We screwed up. We were wrong." And as his 1970s words above show, this isn't even a change in his philosophy. To say that his printing those sentiments today is some sort of attack might be fair. To reply, I could ask, "Why are you being so defensive about it?" Better yet, how can you say he isn't right? Does the fun you are or are not having with later D&D, or another game, invalidate the statement that he thinks they monumentally fucked up by setting D&D down a course of standardization instead of local, home customization? If the Publications Editor (and the guy in charge of Dragon at the start) says that certain changes were made in reaction to fan pressure to not make their own decisions at their own table, who are we to say that isn't so? (see also his July 1976 foreword to Gods, Demigods, and Heroes, D&D's Supplement IV, for more of this same attitude)

... and...

When Gary Gygax played D&D himself in his final years... what version was he playing? House-ruled OD&D is my understanding. What does Arneson play these days when he plays D&D? I would think that the people who made the game have a good understanding about what it's about and the attitude you're supposed to approach with it. But one of D&D's strengths is its versatility, so what Gygax and Arneson and Kask do or did isn't the be-all-end-all. And certainly the fact that Arneson didn't play "AD&D" doesn't mean much. But the fact that the anti-AD&D sentiment was in print by Kask in officially released D&D supplements, and that AD&D was not played by the man who claimed sole authorship on the AD&D books, certainly suggests that Kask isn't even being particularly curmudgeony when claiming that AD&D was the start of the Edition Parade of Successive Rot.

(cue lots of links from people that focus on one sentence, or part thereof, and make fun of that as a complete absurd statement, without acknowledging the further explaining afterwards of the sentence)

(damn I thought this was going to be a quick 5 minute post on the subject... I've done a great many things between waking up too early to start this and finishing it... including gone back to bed... and still... too much writing and the girlfriend is hinting that I need to hurry up so we can walk the dog and have breakfast...)

26 comments:

Well said. I play 4e, played a bunch of 3.5 and when I was a kid I played 2nd edition a few times and the red box once. Other than that I'm a tabletop wargamer and really enjoy the tactical combat in the game but it really slows down the game in my opinion. I've been homebrewing the shit out of 4e to the point where it's starting to not really be 4e anymore.

Long story short the old school blogs have pretty much convinced me to pick up Labyrinth Lord (It's free and I'm cheap/poor) and try to get a group together to start up a campaign. I still enjoy 4e but it doesn't seem to work well for me and long term campaigning.

To a degree internal edition wars over pre-1989 editions, which basically covers OD&D with (and without supplements), AD&D, Holmes, B/X, BECMI/RC, and AD&D2 PHB/MM/DMG (but not black box D&D or AD&D2 Players options) is incompatible with the "DIY" ethic.

My attempt at getting an Old School group last year was BFRP because it reminded me of the Holmes plus PHB & DMG we played in late 70s/early 80s.

My more successful LL game today steals James M.'s theif, the SR and talent rules from T&T7, the spell casting rolls from Jason Vey's S&S, the spell research (since you can learn spells beyond what you get leveling up) from GAZ3, recreates the Chicago of the Dresden Files 1000 years after a magical holocaust with the Morrow Project home base added in, started with an AD&D module (U1), has an old High Fantasy module in the setting, is fueled by listening to Nightwish and the Cure, and is generally avoiding dungeons.

It's clearly old school as this is the closest to 1982 I've played since 1982. But what edition is it? Am I playing B/X and spitting on OD&D because I'm using B/X? But what about those Chainmail derived rules for spell casting? Or the BECMI research? Or the completely non-D&D SR system which has supplanted treasure as the principle way to get XP?

To be honest I think my game, your two games, James M's Dwimmermount, and all the others even The World of Thool are in the same edition regardless of which specific pre-1989 (or recreation) rules set is our starting point and regardless if our primary literary sources are Gygax's favorite weird tales, someone elses, or modern urban fantasy. We're all playing D&D. Hell, I even assert the T&T community was playing better D&D for the 90s than we were.

It's all in what Kask said in 1979 that you quote:

D & D was meant to be a free-wheeling game, only loosely bound by the parameters of the rules.

Pissing on someone who is running a free-wheeling, loosely bound game because they're using Metnzer instead of LBB is hugely missing the point. You and I might disagree about this feature added or that removed but we agree about the key feature and can learn from each other's games. That's what makes us different from the 3.x, D&D4, and WoD crowd.

It's not a contrary point, because I agree with everything you just said (as long as you mean old Nightwish ;)). And You're Doing It Right and you Get It as far as I'm concerned, whatever that's worth.

And as far as people claiming they are or aren't soldiers in the edition war, it's not what you proclaim, it's not about taking a side, it's not about grandstanding, it's about what you do. If you speak softly and go about your "oldschool" business, you're still in. If you proclaim loudly that you're not on any side, but are still playing Good Old D&D, you're still taking a side. You're just one of the civilians away from the front... dropping out of old school and later on the same day blogging about one's Tunnels and Trolls game indeed. ;)

I have been waiting for an chance to suggest at some stage you post your thoughts on musical inspiration for a DMs trip to his Land-of-Awe.

Its not a 'My fav bands list' at all. More a handful of albums that recreate and sustain a mood for DM work.

Great favourites of mine are The Who and dear old Ludwig Van but I never use them for fantasy inspiration. Early metal emotion works for me. Thanks to you I gave Sabbath another listen and they fit the bill.

If you proclaim loudly that you're not on any side, but are still playing Good Old D&D, you're still taking a side. You're just one of the civilians away from the front... dropping out of old school and later on the same day blogging about one's Tunnels and Trolls game indeed. ;)

>>Why does someone who listens to metal give a shit what something thinks about his style of role-play gaming?

Because unlike listening to music, gaming is a social activity and other people's participation is mandatory in order to do it.

>>Seriously, the old school gaming blogs are getting tedious with their in-fighting.

There's the door.

These blogs aren't "experts imparting wisdom on the unwashed masses," we're just fumbling fucknards gathering our thoughts and exploring in a search for each of our individual ways. Neverending journeys, not journals of how to reach a destination.

The "echo chamber" and "infighting" issues are, for the blog writers at least, excellent for pushing issues to the forefront and having each of us decide what we think of an issue.

We don't hold secret meetings in alliance behind closed doors so we can then better brainwash people to the cause, ya know.

... not that I'm invited to, anyway.

(unless TARGA counts, but declaring a "putting a special name on and reporting about the games we were playing anyway" week is hardly a conspiracy. ;))

I believe, with all my heart, that saying, "I prefer this edition," is the same thing as saying, "The other editions aren't as good." It has to be.

I cannot say I agree with this, and indeed I think it seems at variance with some of your other comments, so i thought I would seek some clarification. Are you saying there is only one true way to have fun? That if something is "good" it must be good for everyone? I am very much of the opinion that editions are only subjectively good, and that preferences are not objective statements of fact about quality.

That is to say, if I say I prefer AD&D 2e, I am not saying that other people should to; it is rather a decleration of what kind of game best suits me.

Generally, I see your point and mostly agree with it. I particularly agree with your caution about the difference between corporate and hobbyist interests. I've written a bit more about this here; if you have a chance, please take a look and leave a comment.

4e is Isis. Lots of people like them, and I can sort of see why (they both have parts I appreciate and think are good ideas), but quite frankly they're just not all that interesting. Reading the 4e Monster Manual is a lot like listening to Oceanic - it has all the necessary elements, but... well.

Anyway, Jim, you suck and are completely wrong. First of all, hubris in claiming that the goal of the OSR is to fundamentally change the RPG landscape. Even if it did, the big names would come in and commodify the crap out of it, as you well know. So you are being both intrusive and naive.

Newer editions of the game are published by a division of a multinational corporation and a vested interest in promoting their vision, and guess what, that vision ain't ours.

No, it isn't. Of course, they created the OGL and SRD in order to allow people to do whatever the hell they like with their putrid corporate vision, and play - or even publish - it legally. In fact, I seem to recall a number of retro-clones (read: all of them) using those very documents as their base. Along, too, with vast swathes of more original 3rd party and homebrew games in many, many genres (not to mention the many others that have, at least, also benefitted from the terminology used by the SRD, which is universally recognisable).WotC, eh? What a bunch of oppressive monsters. Not letting people use their trademarks!

Of course, they jerked it up with the GSL, but nonetheless they've still, explicitly speaking, done more to promote free expression in both mechanics and playstyle with their earlier gesture than, say, Gygax. Who we all know was very interested in stifling same towards the end of his career with TSR.

Better yet, how can you say he isn't right? Does the fun you are or are not having with later D&D, or another game, invalidate the statement that he thinks they monumentally fucked up by setting D&D down a course...

Cunning bit of wordplay there! Of course the fact that thousands of gamers love non original D&D doesn't stop Kask from having an opinion, but it very definitely negates his point that RPGs aren't fun anymore (as in, 'Who Sucked the Fun Out of RPGs?'). Yeah, I haven't read the editorial either, but would I be wrong in assuming that he thinks that games have had the fun sucked out of them?I would also like to say that the reason people get defensive is because they're not such big fans of being attacked. Maybe.

I would think that the people who made the game have a good understanding about what it's about and the attitude you're supposed to approach with it.

Honestly, anyone who thinks that this is even a little bit important, or should have any bearing on what anyone who aren't the authors do, is espousing precisely the attitude you're accusing WotC of having.I know that wasn't the point you were trying to make, but I just wanted to throw that in there, since this kind of thing does seem surprisingly common among old-school sorts.

And, yeah, I know:

(cue lots of links from people that focus on one sentence, or part thereof, and make fun of that as a complete absurd statement, without acknowledging the further explaining afterwards of the sentence)

Preach it Brother Raggi! Speak the Word! I'm a Motorhead guy myself, not a C&C player, just a Motorhead lover. Though I have to say, my games are often more Gwar. Yeah, we've got guitars, we'll go to bars, we'll eat your car. Gwar! Gwar! Gwar!

Anyway, I think the end result of an 'edition war' will be a better understanding of play styles.

I think that even within the "old school revolution" there are differing play styles, and the same can be said about those playing the newer editions so there is always a misunderstanding when people takes sides and as someone said having a preference even passively places you on a side.

This is why I'm sure people will still continue to push buttons for reactions, or out of plain ignorance but I've noticed that because of it play styles are becoming more clearly defined, or at the very least easier to explain.

>>First of all, hubris in claiming that the goal of the OSR is to fundamentally change the RPG landscape.

So what, we're all talking and playing and releasing and running convention games and everything to do... nothing beyond our own tables? Don't think so.

>>Of course, they created the OGL and SRD in order to allow people to do whatever the hell they like with their putrid corporate vision, and play - or even publish - it legally.

They created the OGL in hopes that other people would invest money in supporting WotC's own products. That people made games and products completely independent of and directly competing with WotC products was not in the grand plan... unless you can show a statement I've missed?

>>WotC, eh? What a bunch of oppressive monsters. Not letting people use their trademarks!

Actually, the OGL specifically restricts the use of trademarks.

>>Of course the fact that thousands of gamers love non original D&D doesn't stop Kask from having an opinion, but it very definitely negates his point that RPGs aren't fun anymore (as in, 'Who Sucked the Fun Out of RPGs?').

... not necessarily, depending on Kask's definition of fun... (which we both really would need to read the editorial to discuss further) The very presence of an "Old School Renaissance" signifies that Today's Shit Just Doesn't Cut It for a good number of people.

>>I would also like to say that the reason people get defensive is because they're not such big fans of being attacked. Maybe.

Sometimes, attacks are warranted.

>>Honestly, anyone who thinks that this is even a little bit important, or should have any bearing on what anyone who aren't the authors do, is espousing precisely the attitude you're accusing WotC of having.

Looking at a number of philosophies or methods and deciding that one is the better to follow does not make following one equivalent to following any of them!

Sadly, I've been a warrior on the fronts of the edition wars for sometime now and I've just grown tired of it with the release of 4e. However, I've learned a great bit about the game "DnD" because of the trenches. Though I prefer to play 3.5, I can't wait until I get my OSRIC game running or Wednesday to come around for my 4e game over maptools. Though the Edition Wars are futile and their outcome predictable(Play what you want to play), they are necessary for the hobby to flourish.

I think one thing that depresses me, both in the OSR and outside it, is what a bunch of freakin' sissies gamers tend to act like. I mean, you can hardly express a single consistent opinion without some dude getting his Hello Kitties in a bunch.

So say that Kask puts in his chips and lays out his cards on a particular issue. If you don't like it... go straight at him! Don't resort to passive/aggressive BS, don't resort to crying and hugging your stuffed animal, don't even engage your Caps Lock and begin spewing out misspelled obscenities (that's not manly, it's childish). Instead, grit your teeth, buckle down and *refute* him if he's wrong, or admit it if you think he's right.

But instead the discourse, even among obviously intelligent dudes, seems so bound up with bedwetting and emotional fragility that sometimes it seems that we'll never get anywhere.

Maybe it's all the estrogen they're putting in the milk these days. Sort of like a photo of an anti-piracy vessel I saw where the guy was manning a water cannon. Yeah, that's going to deter pirates... you'll spray them with water and then they'll surrender. Thank you, A-Team. I guess for Rome it was lead in the water, and for us it's gonna be female hormones in the dairy products.

@Korgoth: Tolerance and Respect isn't being a "freakin sissy gamer". Being intent on punching issues in the face rather than using reason and understanding mostly ends in pissing contests on who can come up or cite made up terms and shit.

Say what you're thinking but speak for yourself. Also don't label others if you don't wanna be branded.

If you need to refute you might not understand what's going on, ask clear questions, or provide an alternate view. A there can only be one attitude where you have to be wrong or right imprisons you in a mindset of endless ignorance.

If you need to attack a group you labeled don't play dumb and argue around it. Let go of ego and you can find the way.

The whole thing is sort of funny to me, in the same way it's funny when Apple Computer tries to sell its product as hip rebellion.

Something was afoot in 1978-79; I encountered it in a minority of gamers, but the "AD&D is Holy Writ" crowd was a noisy one. The attitude coming directly from Gygax probably helped sell a lot of other games. You didn't get that "I have set myself up as final arbiter of fantasy role playing" eyewash in Tunnels & Trolls, The Arduin Grimoire or RuneQuest.

For 30 years, the OD&D booklets themselves were a sort of shield against the growing cult of the One True Way.

So, what happens when the new "old school" turns from snubbing the really old game to embracing it? Well, part of what happens is the same old fetishism that drove people away from D&D. Only, now there are fewer to drive away other than those devoted to some other incarnation of the same TSR corporate line. Can you say "inbred," boys and girls?

To many enthusiasms being bruited, I can say, "been there and done that back in the '70s or '80s." I didn't feel a need to cling to them as if to a religion, though, thereby limiting the game's possibilities.

That seems to me just the opposite of what Gygax and Arneson wrote in the seminal work, and what Kask reiterated in forewords to supplements.

It's not about the rules you use, or even the rules you don't use. Getting all doctrinaire about either set is the problem. It is in my experience less of a problem in some other segments of the hobby because they're largely self-selected in the first place for not giving much of a damn about popularity or commercial "support."

... one key point that I should have mentioned in the original post but didn't think to at the time, was the marketing for D&D 4e alternating between "the game remains the same" (ugh ugh ugh what awful execution, leaving alone the misrepresentation) and cutting down the previous edition(s) (while still selling it!) through misrepresentation to showcase how the new edition "fixed" "problems" that didn't exist in the first place.

Add in little bits like last year's April Fools Day thing which completely shit on the early artists and the GSL debacle...

uuuggghh.

Being good-natured okie-dokes (on a theoretical 'statement of intent' level at least... in "real life" I wouldn't rant like this unless specifically provoked, but again I'd rather play absolutely nothing than 4e or 3.xe... just like I played nothing instead of Vampire or Magic in the early 90s when it seemed that's all people were playing) seems like it's asking to be bulldozed considering the climate out there.

Funny thing is, in the early 80s, I wouldn't touch a non-TSR thing (at least as far as D&D went... I did play other games). Not because I so much cared about "official" D&D, but more because I had no idea what these things (mostly Role-Aids) actually were. It said they were compatible, but what did that mean? How good were they? I was ignorant about the whole process.

And I didn't even know what a Judges Guild was, beyond the mention in the DMG, until finding Dragonsfoot in the early 00s...

I suspect there is a lot of "positive education" that can be done beyond the online scene (who knows how many gamers are out there that don't pay any attention?), but finding that theoretical gamer who plays but hasn't been made aware of the traditional scene, it's all going to come down to:

"So it's just Dungeons and Dragons? Why are you playing old versions then?"

Although I think the guy is more likely to already have a negative attitude about it, just because it's not new, just because it's not state-of-the-gaming-art graphic design and appearance, just because there's something else out there with D&D officially stamped on it.

Plus, I really do think that most people avoid anyone who actually invests emotion in and actually cares about their pasttimes (which comes from even gamer and sci-fi types... hence bullshit concepts like "nerdrage")...

Well "4E" is so different even from "3E" that I find people reflecting on the difference.

As one might expect of something seemingly designed to please people who don't like D&D (as you and I understand the term), something that turns so much upside down and backwards ... that does indeed characterize part of the demographic playing it.

Some others seem to be working hard to convince themselves that the new games really have "fixed problems." Yet their measure of a good game, what they invoke when offering a DM a compliment, is wistfully recalled from the days when D&D was not all about dry rules and mystery and suspense abounded.

Some spread a myth that AD&D is so complicated as to be "unplayable." An elementary-schooler, though, figured at a glance that the LBBs were simpler ... which is not necessarily a strong point to him.

Dealing with an "apples and oranges" situation, the claim of "better" loses value. What could it mean to call Gamma World better than Squad Leader? What would be the point in trying to make someone feel as if he must "trash talk" one in order to play the other?

Having actually played some 3E and 4E, I think that's just the kind of situation this is. If they happened to be called something else, or if one's great RPG devotion happened to be something other than D&D, would one get so exercised? If you're not a Rolemaster fanatic, do you even have the foggiest about the differences among the editions, or from MERP, or what the heck HARP is?

Instead of working prejudice, I simply run games for whoever expresses an interest in playing. If someone's curious about how it works, then I explain that. He can form his own opinions. No amount of blather about my way being "better" is going to convince him that he's having more fun -- and I see no reason to cajole someone into playing a particular game when he has a more enjoyable way to spend his time.